Reconstructing NS/NNS communication

!"
#
&' (
)
*
+
$
$
, +./
0 12
3
42 2567 890 :
' / ;;;% %$ $ $ *
<
' =
*
$
!
%
(
+
1::9
Reconstructing NS/NNS communication
Marta Gonzalez-Lloret
Spanish Division, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA
[email protected]
Abstract
The study of miscommunication between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) is a recent one, derived
mainly from the literature on miscommunication between native speakers, borrowing its terminology and paradigms.
Most of the studies focus mainly either on the source of miscommunication or trouble source, or on how the repair
process begins, that is who initiates the repair (either the speaker -self-repair initiation- or the listener -other-initiated
repair). This study considers two other important steps in a case of miscommunication: the negotiation/repair and the
re-establishment of communication. That is, who collaborates in the repair of the miscommunication and how the
interaction is reconstructed. A better understanding of the reinstatement process is an essential step for Second
Language Learning since sociolinguistic interaction is a vital part of communication. This paper presents eight
interactions. Seven of them service encounters, between NS and NNS from a Conversation Analysis (CA) perspective,
focusing on what type of misunderstanding or non-understanding occurs, who initiates the repair and how, who actually
repairs the miscommunication and how, and how participants continue constructing the interaction after it is repaired.
“Much learning does not teach understanding”
Heraclitus (540BC-480BC)
Introduction
The study of language interaction between NSs and NNSs focusing on acquisition1 has been done
from several main perspectives: from an SLA perspective, a Discursive theory of SLA, and a social
perspective. In the SLA paradigm, studies of interaction between NNSs have looked at the
negotiation of meaning that is necessary in order to maintain a conversation, the “collaborative
work which speakers undertake to achieve mutual understanding” (Ellis, 1994, p. 260). Most of the
studies in the SLA field have focused on how the interlocutors reestablish the conversation after a
break using techniques such as clarification requests, corrections, comprehension checks, recasting,
and paraphrasing, and negotiation has been found to be central for SLA (Long, 1996; Pica, 1994 for
overview; Varonis & Gass, 1985). Second perspective, Discourse Theory has focused on the
interaction as the vehicle to learn to communicate. The learner engages in conversation in order to
1
There is a great body of research of the interaction between native and non-native speakers that does not focus on the
interaction component, such as studies of bilingual interaction, code switching, cross-cultural pragmatics, and
intercultural misunderstanding.
1
learn how to ‘do’ conversation (Hatch, 1978; Schwartz, 1980). A third perspective considers
interaction as a social practice shared by a group, in which a learner needs to acquire the ability to
construct, reconstruct, and orient to the “structuring resources of the interacting” (Hall 1993, Ochs,
1991).
Most studies have looked at miscommunication in interaction from different points of view: from a
linguistic point of view (Gass and Varonis, 1991; Pica, 1994; White, 1989), from a sociological
point of view (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1990), from an intercultural point of view (see Banks et
al., 1991 for overview; Hinnenkamp, 1987), from a pragmatic point of view (Gumperz, 1978;
Hansell & Ajirotutu, 1982; Trosborg, 1987), and from a more eclectic view (Bremer et al., 1996;
Coupland et al., 1991). Many of the studies on interaction have taken as their main subject of study
the repairs of miscommunication, since they are the main realization of the miscommunication
itself. Nevertheless, not many studies have looked at miscommunication as the premises for
building an interaction, moving away from the negative perspective of the phenomenon to a more
positive constructivist idea (Bremer et al.,1996; Drummond & Hopper, 1991; Koole & Thije, 2001;
Ochs, 1991).
This paper takes communication breakdown as an integral part of interacting and learning to
communicate in a foreign language, focusing mainly on reconstructing interaction as a form of
second language acquisition. This approach has implications for the field of foreign language
learning and teaching, since the teaching of “communication repair” is largely ignored in language
classrooms and teaching materials.
What’s in a name
One of the main difficulties for a good understanding of the subject is the difference in terminology
that is used across fields and authors to identify the same phenomenon, and the use of the same
term for different phenomena. When talking about some problem on the communication flow of an
interaction, we find terms such as ‘miscommunication’ (Gumperz & Tannen, 1979; Milroy, 1984),
‘misunderstanding’ (Gumperz & Tannen, 1979; White, 1989), ‘non-understanding’ (Bremer et al,
1996), ’communication break-off’ (Gass & Varonis, 1991), ‘Communication mix-up’ (Tannen,
1975), ‘communicative breakdown’, and ‘trouble’ (Hinnenkamp, 1987).
Not only do the lexical terms present problems, miscommunication has been approached from
different perspectives of communication with important conceptual divergence. See for example
House, Kasper, and Ross (2003) introduction and illustration of different approaches in chapters. In
this paper, ‘negotiation’ will be understood in Wagner’s (1996) term, as co-constructed by the
participants in each interaction.
Some authors have differentiated between ‘non-understandings’ (when the listener realizes s/he
cannot make sense of what s/he hears either because of linguistic constrains or because the frame of
reference in which they need to be understood is not clear), and ‘misunderstandings’ (when the
listener achieves an interpretation which makes sense to her/him, but it was not what the speaker
meant) Bremer et al., (1996). Nevertheless, these categories are not absolute, and from the
researcher’s point of view it is many times difficult to know how much of the utterance the listener
has actually understood by looking at the interaction only. Since this paper uses a CA approach that
looks at the interaction, and not to the participants’ heads, this paper will not consider such a
distinction.
2
Miscommunication
In any type of interaction, miscommunication can exists due to different social backgrounds,
perspectives, etc. In an interaction between NSs and NNSs the possibilities of miscommunication
rapidly multiply. This is due to the fact that interlocutors don’t share the same language, the same
sociocultural rules of discourse, or a shared linguistic, cultural and personal background (Gass &
Varonis, 1991; Gumperz & Tannen, 1979; Hinnenkamp, 1987). Nevertheless, the participants in an
interaction will do anything they can to repair the miscommunication and continue the interaction.
This is especially true in service exchanges such as selling/buying, since both parts have high
interest at stake. The buyer wants some type of merchandise or service, while the seller wants the
transaction to be successful for economic gain. If the flow of the communication is somehow
interrupted, both parts have interests in resolving the situation. In this case the participants most
likely will not let important breaks of meaning pass by, unless the break is irreparable, in which
case one of the parties will miss their purpose on the interaction, and the interaction will come to an
end.
A recent TV commercial for a checking bank-card illustrates this point. Yao Ming, a famous NBA
Chinese basketball player, is in a shop in New York. He approaches the counter to pay for a statute
of liberty souvenir. The shop assistant is a young girl, in her 20s. Two other employees are there as
well as two other young customers (in their 20s). At the end Yogi Berra, a famous baseball player,
approaches the counter. VOV corresponds to the voice over of the announcer.
1. Yao:
can I write a check?
2. Girl:
yo. (.) (pointing at sign behind the counter that says “absolutely no checks”))
3. Yao:
↑yao (.)
4. Girl:
↓yo::
5. Yao
↓Yao ((pointing at his name on his jacket))
6. Girl:
((making a sign with hand to another employer)) ↑yo
7. Emp1:
yo. ((nodding of head))
8. Yao:
can I wrote a check?
9. Emp1:
↑yo::: ((pointing at sign))
10. Yao:
↑yao:: =
11. Emp1:
=yo::::::: ((pointing at sign))
12. Guy1:
((grabbing friends arm and pointing at Yao)) yo,
13. Yao:
((to the young guys)) Yao
14. Guy1:
[YO::::
15. Guy2:
[YO::::
16. Yao:
((to both guys)) YAO
17. Emp2:
((to Yao)) <yo>,
18. Yao:
can I write a check?
19. Emp2:
((tapping on the sign)) <yo.>
20. Yao:
[hhhh ((leaving the statute of liberty on the counter and leaving))
21. VOV:
<[next time use your ((name of card)) instead of cash it’ll get you in out and on with life>
(Yao leaves the store and Yogi Berra enters)
22. Girl:
((point out at sign)) yo.
23. YB:
gi ((with check book in hand to purchase a gigantic baseball ball))
24. Girl:
((shrugging her shoulders))
25. YB:
yo(.)gi
26. Girl:
((sight)) ↑yo: ((calling the other employer with a hand movement))
(transcription by researcher from Visa commercial, aired at Super Bowl 2003)
This example shows an irreparable communication break, which leaves the NNS, Yao, frustrated,
and the shop assistant with a sensation of failure (in line 26 she sights when confronted with the
3
same conversational situation again). This is actually quite a comical example, but for a NNS
learning a language it can be a traumatic experience that would influence her/his motivation for
learning the language.
This paper looks at miscommunication between NS/NNS from a co-construction of interaction
framework, considering not only linguistic intervening factors but social factors too. A social
perspective on language acquisition considers not only the language improvement, but also the
process by which learners become culturally competent members of a language community. A
constructivist theory defends that participants learn by “constructing” their knowledge, it implies
that each member of the interaction brings her/his own expertise, skills and backgrounds to carry
the interaction and solve any problems (Wenger, 1998). In an interaction between NNS/NS, the NS
is the expert member of the language community at the ‘center’ of the community, while the NNS
is new and ‘peripheral’, but still participating (Lave & Wenger, 1991). It is through the interaction
that the NS will eventually move towards the center of the language community, becoming more
linguistically and socially competent. This idea of social participation for cognitive development
can be traced back to Vygotsky’s idea of an essential link between social transmission and
cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1986).
The purpose of this paper is not the study of the miscommunication process per se, but the way in
which NS and NNS interact to rebuild the flow of communication, and how the communication
continues after the order is re-established, a point that has never, to my knowledge, being studied
before. In order to study the repairs and continuation of communication, we need to look at the
miscommunications, why the interaction flow breaks, how the participants try to repair it, many
times unsuccessfully, and how the communication is re-established.
Types of miscommunication
Although some authors have proposed that language is not an important factor in
miscommunication, stating that ‘purely linguistic competence in terms of command of the language
spoken cannot be held responsible for communication trouble’ (Hinnenkamp, 1991, cited in
Bremer, 1997, pg. 37), the interaction between NS/NNS is largely affected by the language
command of the NNS. For this reason, this paper looks at several types of misunderstandings, both
grammatical and sociocultural. From this perspective, Gass & Varonis, (1991) presents
miscommunication as both a grammatical and sociocultural phenomenon. For them (as well as
Milroy, 1984), miscommunication occurs when there is a mismatch between the speaker’s intention
and the hearer’s interpretation. As subcategories of miscommunication, they distinguish
misunderstanding which implies different semantic analysis by the speaker and hearer (Bremer et
al., 1996; House, Kasper, & Ross, 2003), and incomplete understanding in which one or both of the
participants recognize that there is a problem in the communication. This concept is what Bremer et
al. term ‘non-understanding,’ although for Bremer et al. it is the listener that realizes that the
communication is not being effective.
At this point, when the participants in the interaction try to solve the problem that has risen,
negotiated communication occurs, which may result on the solving of the miscommunication or in
a total lack of understanding. Grammatical miscommunication includes the phonological,
morphological, syntactic, and prosodic systems of the languages. Gass and Varonis (1991) present
an interesting case in which two Filipino nurses, with L1 Tagalog, were accused of murder, by
injecting patients with a drug, based on circumstantial evidence and the nurses’ discrepancies in
testimony. A close analysis of the grammatical differences between Tagalog and English show the
4
difference in verb aspect and tense marking. The example shows the difficulties in the language that
the nurses encountered during the interrogation.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Q: So are you saying that some time during that time you learned about Pavulon?
A: Yes
Q: And what else did you learn about Pavulon, other than it was given at surgery?
A: Are you asking me about what I know about Pavulon in the summer of ’75 or what I know
about Pavulon at the present time, after hearing all theses experts?
5. Q: What you knew about Pavulon at that time.
6. A: I know a little about Pavulon
7. Q: What did you know about it?
8. A: I know it is used in anesthesia.
9. Q: Why? Or, what else do you know about it?
10. A: When I work in ICU, I learn that it’s used to patient to relax. It’s a muscle relaxant. The patient
should be on respirator and it should be ordered by a doctor.
(from Naylor, 1979, pp. 5106-5107, transcripts; cited in Gass and Varonis, 1991)
Even in a transcription lacking important prosodic information, and probably phonetic accuracy in
the defendant’s use of language, we can see in line 4 the confusion of the defendant about the tense
of the verb employed by the lawyer. This is understandable considering that Tagalog is a language
which marks the verbs for a rich system of aspect such as beginning and end of action, but not of
tense, which is not marked in the verb. Therefore, for the Filipino nurse ‘know’ and ‘knew’ are only
distinguishable by the action being terminated, ‘knew’ would mean ‘knew but not any more’, more
like the English ‘had known’, ‘know’ on the other hand means ‘still in progress’. After her question
on line 4 and the lawyers recast of the past form in line 5, she still does not take on the past form of
the verb (line 6), and continues to use the present tense for what it should have been the past tense
(line 6, 8 and 10). This is also probably due to the fact that it is not a salient form in this dialogue,
since most of the times it is in a question form, in which the past is then marked by the modal ‘did’
and not the verb itself. All the changes in verb tenses lead the jury to think that her testimony was
full of inaccuracies. This is without doubt a tragic example of grammatical miscommunication, and
it shows how important linguistic expertise in a court cases can be. Sociocultural miscommunication occurs when [the] “NS tends to attribute NNS a knowledge of sociolinguistic rules
of interaction based on a demonstration of familiarity with the purely linguistic rules”. This type of
communication is common when the NNS is highly proficient. An example from Tannen (1975)
illustrates this type of miscommunication.
NS (wife):
NNS (husband):
NS:
NNS:
Bob’s having a party. Wanna go?
OK
(later) Are you sure you want to go?
OK, let’s not go. I’m tired anyway.
(From Tannen, 1975, cited in Gass & Varonis, 1991, pg. 131)
In this example the wife, in line 3, uses a direct tone with her husband to not impose the invitation
on him, but he interprets it as an indirect way of communicating that she doesn’t want to go, and he
answers negatively in order to please her, contradicting his first answer and creating a confusing
situation for his wife. This situation may not only rise between Ns and proficient NNS but also
between NNSs.
When describing misunderstandings we need to consider what was not understood and why it was
not understood, we can usually not talk about one single cause of non-understanding, but a group of
factors with more or less impact (Bremer, 1996). It is also important to consider these questions
from both a linguistic and a social point of view.
5
Types of repair-initiations
According to Hinnenkamp (1987), repair does not equal error correction. A repair guarantees the
normal flow of conduct and order in the interaction (Goffman, 1971). Following Schegloff,
Jefferson and Sacks (1977) a ‘repair’ is a “practice for dealing with problems or troubles in
speaking, hearing, and understanding the talk in conversation (and in other forms of talk-ininteraction, for that matter)” (Schegloff, 2000, pg 207). For them an integral part of repairs is its
organization, who initiates the repair and when. They propose that repairs can be initiated by the
speaker of the problematic source or ‘trouble source’ (TS), ‘self-initiated repair’ or the listener
‘other-initiated repair’. Although in their 1977 paper, Schegloff et al. claimed that other-initiated
repair usually follows the TS in the next turn (‘next turn repair initiations’ or ‘NTRs’), following
research by Wong (2000) which showed that repairs in data between NS and NNS did not always
occur in the next turn position. We need to take these results with caution, though, since we don’t
know to what extent these results apply to other NNS than the Chinese-English speakers in the
corpus. More recently, Schegloff (2000) investigated more native speaker data and modified his
framework to include cases in which the repair does not occur in such a position. For this paper, I
would incorporate Schegloff’s (2000) terminology for the analysis of repairs. In addition, I will use
the terms ‘Repair Success’ (RS) to evaluate the ‘repair-initiation’ attempts. Tzanne (2000), presents
a list of the possible repair-initiation strategies, although she refers to them as ‘repair attempts’. She
presents three groups: the first group includes direct repair-attempts, the second group repairs by
hinting, and the third group points out the possibility of avoidance. See Figure 1.
Direct repair-attempt
[1] Speaker rebukes hearer in offensive manner
[2] Speaker starts RA by referring to hearer’s inability to understand
[3] Speaker corrects in form ‘Not X, Y’ or ‘No, Y.’
[4] Speaker corrects in form ‘Y.’ (repetition, reformulation of TS, rephrasing)
[5] Speaker corrects as in [4] and elaborates
[6] Speaker starts RA by accepting responsibility for misunderstanding
Repair by hinting
[7] Speaker leaves RA unfinished before correction
[8] Speaker invites hearer nonverbally to reconsider interpretation
[9] Speaker offers corrections in indirect way
Repair-attempt avoidance
[10] Speaker replaces repair-attempt with apologies
[11] Speaker avoids addressing the misunderstanding
Figure 1. Repair attempt strategies (Tzanne 2000:200, text in italics added).
In addition to these strategies, this paper will consider ‘clarification requests’ and ‘confirmation
checks’ [12] as a type of other repair-initiation, since it is produced in a moment in the interaction
when non-understanding is present.2 Examining these moments of communicative difficulty acts as
a ‘magnifying glass’ for analyzing how both parts come to some type of understanding (Bremer et
al., 1996).
2
Some researchers (Hosada, 2000), don’t consider request for confirmation as addressing a type of misunderstanding
because they don’t really address “problems” in the communication.
6
Another consideration when looking at the location in which the repair-initiation starts is the idea
that the longer the distance between the repair initiation opportunity and the repair-initiation the
harder it is to re-establish the communication (Drummond and Hopper, 1991; Hinnenkamp, 2003).
Their examples of telephone conversations (between NSs) show that when the repair is initiated by
the same speaker (self-initiated repair) it is usually done in the same turn, before the interlocutor
speaks, this does not require any type of intervention from the interlocutor, since there is not a real
break of communication or need of negotiation. When the problem is pointed out by the hearer
(other-initiated repair) right after the TS, it is usually done in the form of a clarification request,
confirmation request, restatement with a change of prosody, etc. If the distance is larger than the
fourth turn, the clarification needs to be more specific, usually with reference to the TS, and
frequently takes to ‘stacked repairs’. For a framework that categorizes miscommunications
considering the repair that usually follows see Hinnenkamp (2003).
Co-constructing the interaction
Vasseur et al. (1996) propose that although the difficulty of the discourse is an important factor in
building an interaction, “it is the attitude and discourse behaviour which often makes the
difference.”, “the interactions are, we reiterate, jointly constructed.” (pg, 92-93). They present the
same speaker in different situations and how sometimes she comes out of the interactions frustrated
and without having accomplished her goal while other times she manages to carry on a satisfactory
exchange. There is a main difference between Vasseur’s study and this study in that their study
involved minority groups of NNSs from a perspective of relations of power and gatekeeping
encounters, while the participants in this study were not in a socially marked position, other that
that of being tourists. All except one of the interactions presented here are service interactions, in
which the distribution of power is more even. Both client and seller have a stake in the interaction.
It is important for the client to be successful to acquire a product and for the seller in order to make
a sell and possibly make a client. In spite of social and linguistic differences, buying and selling
exchanges are based on some common knowledge of the world. This is an everyday type of
exchange with common patterns of interaction, which can probably be followed by the participants,
given their common knowledge. It seems that this activity is an optimal setting for the construction
of a common “discursive interculture” (Koole & Thije, 2001).
As part of the collaborative process of communication, when the NS realizes that s/he is talking to a
NNS with low command of the language, s/he usually modifies her/his language, this is known as
‘foreign talk’. As part of this modification, the NS may make use of different language strategies,
such as language simplification, topicalization of salient elements, repetition, and emphasis
(Hinnenkamp 1987; Roberts, 1996). The NS may also revert to previous knowledge of a similar
interaction (Bremer & Simonot, 1996) and/or other non-verbal strategies such as body language.
This study looks at the data and analyzes if the NSs in each case are using such strategies when
communicating when the NNS, and how these contribute to the co-construction of the interaction.
Research questions
To summarize, the main research question this study tries to answer is: How do NS and NNS reconstruct service interactions when there is a non-understanding or misunderstanding?
In order to answer this question, four steps during the interaction need to be considered and four
questions answered: Q1: How do misunderstandings occur (the type of misunderstanding); Q2:
Who attempts to repair the miscommunication and how do they initiate the repair (the type of repair
7
initiation); Q3: Who repairs the misunderstanding and how is it done (the repair process); and Q4:
What happens after the misunderstanding is repaired (the re-building of the interaction).
Method
The data for this study are based on seven conversations between native speakers of Spanish and
native speakers of English, learners of Spanish. Six are service exchanges, while one is a private
conversation. The L2 Spanish participants were between the ages of 22 and 28 and were part of a
study abroad program in Spain. The students can be classified as intermediate students although
their conversational abilities are different. The female student has taken more than six Spanish
courses at an American University and she is working towards a degree in Spanish. This was her
first experience at a Spanish speaking country. The male student has only taken one class but has
visited the country regularly to visit family and friends. Although miscommunication can be due to
negative stereotypical views of groups (Hewstone & Giles, 1986; cited in Bank et al., 1991), this
was not considered one of the possible reasons in these data because both students involved in the
interactions did not look like “typical” American students, and their L1 accent when speaking L2
was not easily identifiable.
The conversations varied between 2 minutes and 18 minutes. All the conversations were recorded
with a small digital recorder. The students carried the recorder with them and were asked to record
their service encounters during several days. The NSs were not aware they were being recorded.
Transcription and conventions were adapted from the work of Ten Have (1999). (Translation by the
author).
Conversational Analysis
The analysis of the data was done using a Conversational Analysis (CA) approach. There is a
growing number of studies in the field of NS/NNS interaction that use a CA approach (see
Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Boden, & Zimmerman, 1991; Wong, 2000), and especially of
conversation interactions that are not “casual” conversation but have a purpose and/or are
embedded in institutions or daily practices (Firth, 1996).
Conversational Analysis (CA) was adopted for the examination of the data because a detailed
analysis of the order of the data helped to find the sources of “trouble”. CA brings to the analysis
the notion of ‘intersubjectivity’, how participants in social interaction use resources to achieve
understanding and show comprehension of it. The detailed analysis of CA allows to look at the
verbal and non-verbal communication used by the participants to make sense of each other and
show involvement in the conversation (Roberts, 1996). CA reveals when the participants
themselves refer to a problem of communication, which is something imperative for the analysis
itself (Wagner, 1996). It also allows to focus on the turns of the interaction which helps to see the
non-understanding process. (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Bremer et al., 1996). As Schegloff (1984
cited in Bremer et al. 1996) points out understanding and non-understanding are shown through the
‘responsive treatment’ of the ‘prior turns’ talk’. An added advantage of using CA for this research
is that in CA, the analyst is able to make observations in the data in her/his quality of “comembership” of the participants’ linguistic-cultural community. It is this shared knowledge that
allows the analyst to use her/his intuition and recognize “describable” ways of doing things.
(Jefferson & Schenkein, 1978, Sacks, 1992, both cited in Firth, 1997). In the case of this research, I
shared linguistic and cultural knowledge of all participants involved, since Spanish is my native
culture and language, and I have native-like command of the participants L1 language and culture.
8
One of the pitfalls that have been attributed to CA is that most analysts make distinctions between
main and side-sequences, sometimes paying less attention to the second one. Nevertheless, since in
interactions between NNS/NS side-sequences tend to be of great importance, portraying the
“struggle and pressure” to reach understanding and becoming the focal point of study (Roberts,
1996, pg. 31), in this paper, such side sequences will not be differentiated from the main sequences.
Data analysis and results
In this section I will present seven data cases. Each case starts with the full interaction followed by
its analysis according to the four elements discussed in the Research Questions section.
Case 1. Next turn repair. The perfect co-constructor.
Joe and Fin, both NNS of Spanish, L1 English, go to a shop to develop Advantix film. They need
the photos developed soon because they leave for another city at the end of the week. The Shop
attendant is a young female Spanish speaker.
TS
1.
Joe-
SR
2.
NS-
AK
3.
Joe-
4.
NS-
5.
Joe-
6.
NS-
7.
8.
JoeNS-
9.
Joe-
10. NSTS
11. Joe-
RS
12. NS-
AK
13. Joe14. NS15.
16. Joe17. NS18. Joe19. NN220. NS-
hola tenemos una película de advantix y es posible:: (.) devlove;;r
‘hola we have an advantix film and is it possible to (.) retur::’
revelarlo!
‘devlope it’
revelar:‘develop:-’
una semana
‘a week’
una semana (.) y cuanto cuesta?
‘a week (.) and how much does it cost?’
depende del tamaño que halláis hecho
‘depends on the size you have made’
ok (..) y (..) (hands in the role)
son veinticinco (.) pero depe[nde del tamaño,
‘they are 25 (.) but it depends on the size’
[sí entiendo ok.
[‘yes I understand ok’
si es así, así o así (.) panorámica ((using hand motion))
‘if it is like this, or like this, or like this (.) panoramic’
es mixto=
‘it’s mixed’
=mezclado
‘mixed’
si so::
pues no sé (.) más o menos (6s) ponemos diez, diez y cinco? diez normales diez de grupo
y cinco panorámicas? más o menos?
‘dont know (.) more o less (6s) should we say ten, ten and five? Ten normal, ten group and
five panoramic? more or less?’
mas o menos
‘more or less’
(2.5) ((NS is calculating in a calculator))
unas mil setecientas pesetas
‘about 1700 pesetas’
ok y ah (.)
cuanto eh euros?
‘how much eh euros?’
euros? (she goes to a different counter)
9
21. Fin22. Joe23. Fin
24. NS25. JoeTS
26. NS27.
28. Joe29. NS30.
31.
32.
33.
JoeJoeFinJoe-
34. NS35. Joe-
TS
SR
AK
36. Joe37. Fin38. Joe39. NS40. Joe41. NS42. Joe43. NS44. Joe45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
NSJoeFinJoeFinJoe-
51. NS-
‘euros?’
(6s)
( ) cause ( )
yea, because we are leaving on friday
[yea
ya we are living xxx
(13 s)
son diez euros
‘its’ ten euros’
vale y ah (.) no es posible mas rápido? (.) [porque::
‘ok and ah(.) is it not possible faster? (.) [because:::’
[podemos pon[er urgente pero::: esataría: (.)
<a principios de la semana que viene>
[‘we could write urgent but::: it would be (.)
<at the beginning of next week’>
ok,
sobre el miércoles o jueves de la semana que viene.
‘around Wednesday or Thursday next week’
ok,
either Wednesday or Thursday
( )
porque uhm vamos a barcelona en viernes (.) y (.) necesitamos=
‘cause uhm we are going to barcelona on friday and we need’
=las fotos
Sí (.) antes
‘yes before’
so:: ok wednesday or thursday
wednesday is a holiday
ah, sí (.) wednsday es un fiesta
‘ah yes (.) Wednesday is a holiday’
no, la semana que viene!
‘no, next week’
ohh el próximo semana!
‘oh next(masc) week(fem)’
eso es
‘That’s right’
ah no (.) ok (.) so no es más rápido?
‘ah no (.) ok (.) so it’s not faster?’
no porque va a barcelona
‘no because it goes to barcelona’
ya! (.) este verd- este viernes (.) a barcelona
‘ya! (.) it’s verd- this friday (.) to barcelona’
mmm no!
no?
XXX
[mmkey
XXXX
mm right! muchas gracias (gigglingng softly)
‘thank you very much’
de nada, a vosotros!
‘you’re welcome, (thank) to you’
TST- Trouble source , M- Misunderstanding , ORI- Other- Repair Initiation, RS- Repair Success, AKAcknowledge, NVSR- Non-verbal successful repair.
This example shows how smooth an interaction can be when the trouble sources are repaired
immediately (next turn repair) (Drummond and Hopper,1991; Schegloff, 1977). In this case we
have an extremely cooperative NS, who offers immediate help when the NNS interlocutor starts to
show any sign of trouble. The trouble sources never become miscommunication problems, because
10
the NS resolves them right away. When Joe cannot find the Spanish word for ‘develop’ (line 1), she
facilitates it before he can even finish his incorrect guess (line 2). She even clarifies the word
tamaño (‘size’) (line 8) with hand gestures, in line 10, although there was a claim to
comprehension, as expressed by Joe in line 9 (si entiendo ‘yes I understand’). Similarly, in line 11,
what could have been a potential problem for the communication, a wrong lexical choice, was
immediately corrected in line 12 and the correction acknowledged by Joe in line 13. The sequence
of lines 38-40 is a little different in the sense that the trouble source is not a lexical problem but a
content problem. Joe thinks Wednesday is a holiday and the shop assistant corrects him (line 39) in
the next turn. Joe acknowledges the correction, regarding the content as expressed by his intonation
and exclamation ‘ohh’, however, he does not pick up on the grammatical form used by the
attendant. He uses the article and the adjective on the masculine form although they need to agree
with the feminine sustantive semana (‘week’). This may be evidence that the NNS is actually
focusing on the content and not the linguistic component of the interaction.
In this example the shop assistant plays an important part in the co-construction of the interaction.
She is aware of Joe’s language constraints, and although her speed does not slow down, and she
does not modify the language structure or use code-switching, she gives support when Joe finds it
difficult to finish his utterances. She is practicing what Bremer & Simonot (1996) term ‘taking up
an incomplete contribution’. This is the ideal co-constructor since she not only offers help with
points of difficulty, but she also ‘gives room’ (Bremer & Simonot, 1996) for the NNS to contribute
to the interaction. She even advances answers to questions that would have logically been asked in
the interaction without waiting for the NNS to formulate the question. In line 4 she answers una
semana (‘one week’), since the next logical question in the interaction would have been ‘how long
does it take?’. We will see that although the NS in all the data cases are very friendly and
participatory, not all interactions were so smooth, requiring more effort by both parts.
Case 2. Pañuelos. A stack of misunderstandings
This case is an example of several linguistic misunderstandings that tried to be resolved by the NNS
and the NS without success, the misunderstandings are ‘stacked’ until the first misunderstanding is
finally resolved. This interaction is a very illustrative example of both NS and NNS collaborating
to co-construct a dialogue, at times very difficult.
Joe and his friend enter a small shop to buy a handkerchief for Joe'
s friend, all the merchandise is
behind the counter. A Spanish woman, about 60, helps them behind the counter. Joe is a NNS male
L1 English mid 30s; Frd is his friend, a 60 year old woman L1 English; LDY is the shop lady about
60, L1 Spanish.
1.
Joe-
2.
Ldy-
3.
Joe
4.
Ldy
5.
Joe
6.
Ldy
TS
7.
Joe
ORI
8.
Ldy
hola, buenas [tardes
‘hello, good [evening’
[buenas tardes
[‘good evening’
lo siento mi español es un poco malo
‘I’m sorry but my Spanish is a little bad’
ah bueno, va[le=
‘ok, it’s ok’
[pero
[‘but’
=yo te entiendo, a ver
‘I understand you, let’s see’
ah okey (.) la mujer eh quiere eh servilletas
‘ah ok (.) the woman eh wants eh napkins’
mantel,
11
AK/ M1
ORI1
M2
SRI2
ORI2
AK/TS
M3
OIR3
SR
SIR
OIR
SR
AK
SR
AK
12
‘tablecloth’,
mantel. sí
‘tablecloth. yes’
10.
Ldy
de que tamaño?
‘what size?’
11.
Joe
i:↑ ah
12.
Ldy
este? ((showing box with a tablecloth))
‘This one?’
13.
Joe
diferente tipos or?
‘different types or?’
14.
Ldy
i+ aquel le gusta? xxxx
‘yes↑ you like that one?’
((she leaves the counter and comes back with a box))
15.
Joe
no si ok xxx ((talking to his friend)
16.
frd
xxxx is mantel?
17.
Joe
xxx not mantel, hold on
18.
frd
handkerchief? (0.8)
19.
Ldy
pequeño o mas grande?
‘small or bigger?’
((showing a tablecloth))
20.
Joe
oh [no no ah (.)
21.
frd
[no no ((laughs))
22.
Joe
no para mesa↑ pero para cara.
‘no for table↑ but for face’
23.
Ldy
ahhhhh
24.
Joe
tiene?
‘do you have?’
25.
Ldy
servilletas sueltas? °esque eso no es° (.) esto
‘individual napkins? that really it is not (.) this’
26.
Joe
no, no es ah (0.4)
27.
Ldy
ah! toalla ya se
‘ah! towel I know’
28.
Joe
toalla. okey.
‘towel, ok.’
29.
Ldy
˚a ver de esos de papel? ˚
‘lets see those paper ones’
((pointing at a box))
30.
Frn
no papel, no papel
‘no paper, no paper’
31.
Ldy
( ) de aquellas ((reaching towards bathing towels))
‘( ) those there’
32.
Joe
no es toalla para cuerpo
‘it’s not towel for body’
33.
Frn
no,
34.
Joe
es para nariz
‘is for nose’
35.
Ldy
ahh!=
36.
Joe
=si?=
37.
Ldy
=pañuelo ((laughing))
‘handkerchief’
38.
Joe
((laughing)) pañuelo okey
‘handkerchief, ok’
39.
Frn
((soft laughter))
40.
Joe
sí.
((brings boxes with handkerchiefs))
41.
Frn
o:ke:y::
42.
Joe
this?
43.
Ldy
bordadito a mano, muy barato eh
‘hand embroided, very cheap’
9.
Joe
44.
45.
46.
Joe
frn
Joe
47.
frn
˚one euro˚ ((looking at the tag))
one euro
amarillo (.) y (.) blanco (.3) that'
s one hundred pesetas (.4) you like this?
‘yellow (.) and (.) white’
mmhhm. ((nodding))
The interaction starts with Joe introducing himself as a NNS (line 3, ‘I am sorry my Spanish is very
bad’), that the shop lady acknowledges (line 6), inviting Joe to continue the interaction ‘let’s see’.
In line 7, the first problem arises when Joe asks for servilletas (‘napkins’) and it won’t be resolved
until line 37, at the end of the interaction, when they all realize that the lexical term he used does
not correspond to the item they are looking for (handkerchiefs). Since the lexical term used by Joe
is a legitimate item to be purchased in this shop, the misunderstanding takes to a new
misunderstanding to a new misunderstanding, and so on, all of them from the trouble source
servilleta (‘napkin’). In line 8, trying to repair the trouble source, the lady proposes a lexical
correction to ‘napkin’, ‘tablecloth’ since usually napkins are not sold individually (other initiated
repair). Joe then acknowledges the correction, in an assertive intonation, creating a new
misunderstanding (since they are not looking for a tablecloth). When in line 10 she tries to find
information about the size of the tablecloth and Joe is unable to understand, she offers a visual aid,
and shows a tablecloth in a box. Joe again creates a new misunderstanding when he asks for
‘different types’ (line 13) (implying ‘something different’) what the NS understands as different
types of the same element (tablecloth). In the embedded dialogue between Joe and his friend in
English (lines 15-18) they start realizing that maybe mantel means ‘tablecloth’ and he himself
initiates the repair in line 20, followed by a repair initiated by other, his friend (line 21). The repair
includes laughing and several assertive ‘no’, followed by a statement about the use of the item ‘not
for the table but for the face’. This new piece of information far from clarifying the
misunderstanding, takes it back to the association with the incorrect lexical item servilleta
(‘napkin’). In line 25 the NS still does not know what they want and does not offer and alternative,
Joe does not offer an alternative either, but rather a long pause. This is usually a common point of
breakage of the interaction or interaction foreclosure. Nevertheless, in line 27 it is the NS who
offers another possibility, rebuilding the interaction. She offers toalla (‘towel’) as a possibility,
probably associated to Joe’s assertive comment in line 22 ‘for the face’. Joe takes up the lexical
item (line 28) and his intonation reveals that this could be the item he is looking for. This
misunderstanding is revealed when she offers the word papel (‘paper’) a word Joe’s friend knows
well (line 30) rapidly volunteering a repair to the misunderstanding, which is successfully repaired
in line 31 when the lady reaches towards bathing towels. Although the embedded misunderstanding
about being ‘paper’ has been resolved, the misunderstanding about looking for a ‘towel’ has not.
Both Joe (self-initiated) and his friend (other-initiated) try to repair and finally, in line 34, Joe
initiates the repair that will lead to a successful repair in line 37 ‘handkerchief’. The tension of the
interaction is released through the laughter of all participants, the breakdown has been repaired and
the interaction continues now as a regular sell/buy encounter. The lady brings out a box of
handkerchiefs, Frd chooses several and they pay for them without any more trouble.
This is an interesting example of co-construction which involves hard work from both participants.
Both backchannel the other’s utterances, and acknowledge when improvement has been done in
resolving part of the trouble. The NNS acknowledges the NS’s suggestions in line 7, line 9, and
line 28 both with an uptake of the lexical item. There is even one instance in which the shop lady
acknowledges she is understanding Joe, although the understanding is not real, she still does not
know what they actually want: in line 23, her exclamation ‘ahhhh’ and intonation seemed to
indicate she has the answer, but two lines later she is still wandering what he wants (‘individual
13
napkins? that is really not this’). The NNS tries his best to find lexical items to repair the
miscommunication and the NS offers opportunities for the NNS to explain himself at the same time
that offers support when he lacks the language competence.
Case 3. Chocolate. A sociocultural misunderstanding
NS is a male with L1 English, and the NNS is a female, L1 Spanish and highly competent in
English. The NNS is mumbling a song while they are driving. She tries unsuccessfully to
remember the song.
TS
M1
ORI
M2
ORI2
1.
2.
NS:
NNS:
(0.2)
what are you mumbling?
that song (0.6) hhhhm. hh. what’s that woman’s name? that singer
3.
the chocolate woman!
4.
NS:
areta franklin
5.
NNS:
no::::! she’s not black!
6.
NS:
you said she was black!
7.
NNS:
no I did not!
8.
NS:
yes you did!
9.
NNS:
NO I DIDN’T
TS
10. NS:
yes you did. you said that chocolate woman.
11. NNS:
yes, the one that sings that your love is better than chocolate
M3
(0.3) sarah maclofn? she’s white
ORI/M4 12. NS:
ORI
13. NNS:
I never said she was black!
14. NS:
yes (.) you (.) did
15. NNS:
NO I didn’t ((frustrated))
16. (3.4)
17. NS:
((laughs))
18. NNS:
whats so funny↑ ((quite angry))
RS
19. NS:
honey, a chocolate woman IS a black woman.
AK
20. NNS:
oh (0.4) how am I supposed to know that?
TS- Trouble source, M- Misunderstanding, ORI- Other- Repair Initiation, RS- Repair Success, AKAcknowledge
In this example the NNS is looking for a name that she cannot remember, as marked by the
referential (‘that song’), the pause, and the cut speech, as well as the direct question about the name
(‘what’s that woman’s name?’). All she can remember are some words of the song (line 3), this is
the trouble source, where the miscommunication initiates. In line 4, the NS offers an answer to the
question which triggers a misunderstanding and the following interactional negotiation. Although
both NS and NNS are trying to repair the breakdown in the communication, subsequent
misinterpretations take them deeper in the break. The NS claims that the NNS is talking about a
black woman “chocolate woman” (line 3), nevertheless the NNS has associated “chocolate woman”
to the words of a song by a singer which is not black, and which sings a song about chocolate.
They both have clear concepts of the pragmatic use of the linguistic item and they defend that this
is the one that has been used. This is an example of sociocultural miscommunication due to
pragmatic knowledge and to the difference between inferences that participants draw. In this case
the speaker of English was applying a semantic scope to the world “chocolate” that was culturally
specific and was not shared by the Spanish speaker. The participants try to be repair the
misunderstanding several times unsuccessfully, until one of them, the only one that has knowledge
of both possible pragmatic uses of the word, realizes the misunderstanding. This interaction is also
an example that miscommunication is more frequent, and sometimes “dangerous” in conversations
with fluent second language speakers than in those with second language learners (Gass and
Varonis, 1991, pg 131).
14
This interaction exemplifies how complicated a misunderstanding can be, and how the repair and
restoration of communication may take several turns, time and collaboration from both parts, and
how the lack of repair could take to a total break of the communication (line 16), and possible more
serious consequences. We can also see that the repair-initiations come from the “other” person,
there are not self-initiated repairs in this interaction, probably because both interlocutors are certain
they have produced accurate sentences. In lines 4, 6, and 12, it is the NS who starts a
miscommunication turn by interpreting (wrongly) the NNS’s words, and it is the NNS that attempts
repair, although unsuccessfully. In line 13, the NNS provokes a new misunderstanding while trying
to clarify the previous misunderstanding (M3), and it is the NS who tries without success to initiate
repair. The repair is finally successful in line 19, initiated by the NS in line 17 through a nonverbal turn, laughter. The NS restores the communication through an explicit explanation of what
the pragmatic meaning of the word ‘chocolate’ is for him, making this shared knowledge. The
communication is restored as acknowledged by NNS in line 20, ‘how am I supposed to know
that?’. In this turn, the speaker categorizes herself as NNS, legitimizing or even claiming the right
to not knowing the meaning of the contested lexical item. This interaction exemplifies the
reconstruction of a sociocultural misunderstanding between a NNS / NS.
Case 4. At the travel agency
Ann is a NNS of Spanish, L1 English. She is going to a travel agency to book a trip for the
weekend to Barcelona for her and three other friends. She takes Joe along. He is also L1 English
and his spoken proficiency is not as high as Ann’s, but his listening skills are better, and he had
been in Barcelona a few weeks earlier. The travel agent, female, NS of Spanish, is looking at flights
but she cannot find a return flight for Sunday.
1.
NS-
2.
Ann-
3.
4.
5.
NS-
6.
7.
JoeAnn-
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
JoeAnnJoeAnn
JoeAnnNS-
16. AnnTS
17. NS-
18. Ann-
no hay más que por la mañana ((she keeps looking))
‘There is only morning ones’
Si no hay nada por vuelto (.) es posible encontrar algo:: po::r tren?
‘If there is nothing for return (.) is it possible to find something by train?’
por tren no hay nada, porque lo acabo de mirar, ahora mismo, para el regreso
no hay nada. entonces tendría que ser ehh 0.2) vamos a ver AirEuro:pa: (.2)
a cientocuarentaiun euros si que tenéis para ir
‘There is nothing by train, I have just looked at it, right now, there is nothing to
return, then it would have to be ehh (0.2) lets see AirEuro:pa: (.2) at 141
euros you have °one way°’
((whispering)) find out if there is space from Valladolid to Barcelona=
((whispering)) in autobus?
‘by bus?’
=((whispering)) because what she is saying is that there is no space because
they only give certain amount for Salamanca
((whispering)) ok
((whispering)) because then you can take the bus to Valladolid [and jump
((whispering)) [and then
((whispering)) jump in the train there
((whispering)) ( )
pero bueno tengo dos cupos por ser domingo
‘There are two places because it is Sunday’
y no hay nada por tren (.) aquí en Salamanca ir a:: Barcelona
‘And there is nothing by train (.) here in Salamanca to go:: Barcelona’
no hay nada para regresar de Barcelona ni a Madrid ni a Salamanca, en tren, el
domingo
‘There is nothing to come back from Barcelona to Madrid or Salamanca, by
train, on Sunday’
y::: es posible: si: es posible ir a Valladolid primer y despue:s ir en po:r tren a:
sa a a Barcelona
15
M
19. NS-
OIR
20. Ann(0.4)
21. NNS-
ORI
TS
M
ORI
ORI
SR
AK
TS
M
SR
16
‘And is it possible is possible to go to Valladolid first and then go by train to
sa- to Barcelona’
es el mismo tren que va allí
‘It is the same train that goes there’
[es el mismo (.) hmm
[‘it is the same one (.) hmm’
[es que los fines de semana suele estar bastante complicado, el tren
[‘on the weekends it is quite difficult, the train’
22. Ann°it’s strange° ((talking to Joe))
23. Annes muy‘It’s very-’
24. Joe-pero hay una tren (.) desde hm Valladolid (.2)
‘but there is train (.) from hm Valladolid’
25. NSsi
‘yes’
26. Joeno hm no pasar Madrid, ° si°
‘it does not to pass Madrid °yes°’
27. NScreo que si.
‘I think it does’
28. Joeno (.) es‘no (.) is-’
29. Annel tren- (1.1) ((travel agent looking in the computer))
‘the train (1.1)’
30. Joeporque hace::: (.) tres semanas (.) mi mujer y yo (.) hm venir a Barcelona, de
Valladolid, (.) y es un (.) ruta diferente
‘Because three weeks ago (.) my wife and I (.) came to Barcelona, from
Valladolid (.) and it is a (.) different rout’
31. NS((much softer tone)) hay solamente dos trenes (0.3) eso para la ida vamos a ver
32.
(0.6) ((reading from computer screeen)) a las nueve y veintiocho que es el tre:n
33.
((talking to herself while looking at the computer)) °puedes ser- este cual es (.)
34.
este no es° ((mumbling)) (0.8)
((much softer tone)) ‘There is only two trains (0.3) that’s the way there lets see
(0.6) ((reading from computer screen)) at 9:28 that is the train ((talking to
herself while looking at the computer)) °could be- this is which one no its is°’
((mumbling)) (0.8)
35. Annesa es la información ah para ir (.) por tren?
‘That is the information to go (.) b train?’
36. NSsi
‘yes’
37. Annde Valladolid?
‘from Valladolid?’
38. NS°sí°
‘°yes°’
39. Anndirectamente a (.) Barcelona
‘directly to (.) Barcelona’
40. NS°sí sí°
‘°yes yes°’
41. Annsí
‘yes’
(1.2) ((Joe and Ann whispering in English)) ((incomprehensible))
42. Joebut I could swear the train we got on in Valladolid came from Salamanca
43. NSpor desgracia solo hay uno
‘unfortunately, there is only one’
44. Annhay uno por tren
‘there is one in each train’
45. NSsolamente hay un tren, pero no sé si hay pla:zas (.) a la una (0.3) del mediodia
‘there is only one train, but I don’t know if there are seats (.) at one (0.3)
TS
46. Ann-
ORI
47. NS-
SR
48. Joe49. NS-
AK
50. Ann51. NS52. Ann53. NS54. Joe55. NS56. Ann57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
JoeAnnJoeAnnJoe-
62. Ann63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
TS
(1.6)
Ann:
Joe:
AnnNS-
68. NS69. Ann(0.5)
70. NS71.
tratarse
72.
M
73. Ann-
ORI
74. NS-
75. Ann76. NS77.
SR
AK
(0.2)
78. Joe79. Ann-
midday’
esto es para:: el viernes, sí?
‘this is for Friday, yes?’
esto para- no!
‘this is- no!’
[domingo=
‘Sunday=’
=[esto el regreso, la ida
‘=this is the return, the way there’
la ida
‘the way there’
la ida hay dos trenes,[XXX que hay plaza
‘the way there there are two trains, [XXX that there is space’
[ahh!
y luego el regreso esto XXX ((turning to the computer))(0.2)
‘And then the return this XXX’
pero no hay plazas? En viernes?
‘but there are no seats? On Friday?’
es que lo tengo que emitir directamente, no se puede ver.
‘but I have to issue it directly, one cannot see it.’
°cinco y tres° ((reading))
‘° five and three°’
((to Ann)) ya, that’s the train number
oh! ok
so it’s nine thirty or eleven thirty <nine thirty>
ok
so you can leave Friday night, you’ll get there Saturday morning (.) and then
return (.) Sunday at one.
((to travel agent)) y cuanto cuesta ida y vuelta para: esto?
‘And how much is it go and return for this?’
((talking soft to Joe)) and this pays fo:::::r [the train
[the train but the problem is that XXXX
oh
esto cuesta treintaicinco euros
‘This costs 35 euros’
(
)
((giggles softly))
treintaicinco y treintaitres (.) cincuenta. (.) dependiendo del tren °que se coja °
se suman los trayectos y luego hay un veinte por ciento de descuento por
de ida y vuelta.
‘35 and 33 (.) fifty (.) depending of the train °one takes ° the ways are added up
and then 20% of discount because it is a both ways.’
ida y vuelta sí
‘with return, yes’
no [vamos a ver. [cad- cada trayecto tiene un precio. que es este este y este=
((pointing at ticket))
‘No [let’s see.
[ea- each way has a price. That is this and this= ((pointing at
ticket))’
[no
[no?
=dependiendo de los que se coja hay que sumar los trayectos y luego
restarles un veinte por ciento.
‘=depending on what you take one has to add the ways and then substract
20%’
you get a twenty per cent discount when you return
[ahhhhhhh
17
AK
80. NS:
(0.2)
81. Ann82. NS:
[eso es.
‘[that’s correct.’
Necesitamos encontrar un hotel cuando estamos [en Barcelona si también
‘We need to find a hotel when we are [in Barcelona yes too’
[en Barcelona
‘ [in Barcelona’
In this example the interlocutors are trying to build the interaction through several trouble source
lines, in which the trouble is not in the language per se or sociocultural notions proper to the
participants, but the content together with language difficulties. The travel agent is looking for an
airline ticket (in line 4 she is searching for seats in AirEuropa, a Spanish airline), while the NNSs
are asking about the possibilities of traveling by train. The travel agent is not paying much attention
to them, and tells them there are no spaces available before checking (line 3) (although she says she
has checked before). Meanwhile, both NNSs are talking in English about traveling by train instead
through other routs (line 6-14). On line 17 there is a potential problem for the communication when
the travel agent tells them that there are no spaces in the train, and the Valladolid train is actually
the same train. This turn instead of solving the misunderstanding, takes it to a conversation
foreclosure. Ann accepts the content and there is a pause (0.4). It is Joe who tries to re-establish the
interaction adding some new information (line 21). He knows that the train that is full and goes
through Madrid is not the same one that goes through Valladolid. Nevertheless, the travel agent
does not accept his repair and creates a new source of trouble when she affirms that it is the same
train. Joe answers with a short ‘no’ in a categorical prosody, which may be understood as
threatening to the maintenance of the interaction (line 28), immediately both Ann and Joe try to
soften the threat and Joe explains how he is so sure about his statement (line 30). After this, the NS
resumes to a softer tone of voice, more friendly, while she actually looks at the trains on the
computer. After the flow of communication is restored we see a confirmation request from Ann
(line 35) to make sure they are now referring to the same topic.
This interaction also shows that those misunderstandings that are resolved in a few turns from the
interaction are easier to solve than if several turns pass by (Drummond & Hopper, 1991). In line 43
a new trouble source surfaces when the travel agent uses a referential and leaves out the specific
noun in a sentence after coming to the conversation from a long pause (1.2). The
miscommunication in this case is triggered by the NS’s utterance being condensed, including an
elliptical word: ‘train’, to which the NS referred through the use of a pronoun uno (‘one’). This is a
common source of misunderstanding between NS/NNS (Bremer, 1996). Ann does not understand
what uno (‘one’) refers to and she inquires about uno referring asiento (‘seat’) (line 44), because
she is going with three other friends. The misunderstanding is easily resolved in the next turn when
the travel agent specifies un tren (‘a train’). In a similar way, in line 46, Ann creates a new source
of miscommunication when she asks if this information is for Friday, the repair is initiated in the
following turn and solved at the same time by the NS and Joe (line 48) who clarifies the day. Ann
acknowledges the problem has been resolved by associating the day of the week and the travel
trajectory correctly (which had been the misunderstanding item). The conversation is re-established
by shifting the topic to clarify another point about the trip (line 50).
In line 70 the NS introduces a new trouble source when she tells the price of the tickets in a quite
long and complicated series of numbers and specific vocabulary to the raveling by train domain.
This difficult utterance comes after an unproblematic sequence (lines 49-69) and when NS are
talking to NNs, even if they are usually good at adapting to the linguistic means of a beginner
learner, after an unproblematic sequence, they tend to ‘lapse back into ‘normal’ manner of delivery’
18
(Bremer, 1996, pg. 52). This made the sentence fast and linguistically complex. In addition, the
content is strongly rooted in cultural practices. It is necessary to understand how the train system
functions in order to understand that the tickets cost depending on the amount of trayectos (‘legs’).
This combination provokes a misunderstanding stated by Ann who thinks this is the total price of
the ticket (line 73). The NS immediately initiates the repair of the misunderstanding with an
explicit negative to Ann’s question, a vocative to attract the hearer’s attention, and elaboration on
the statement before, this time without using numbers. It is Joe who in line 78, using English, adds
the information that repairs the conversation by using English. Ann acknowledges the repair and so
does the travel agent that only at this point seems to actually understand English. The interaction is
re-established and it is again Ann who continues the interaction by starting a new topic relevant to
the service encounter.
This interaction exemplifies how misunderstandings may have several onsets which may be
linguistic in origin (lines 43-46), based on different goals by the different participants (lines 17-34),
or a combination of linguistic and sociocultural origin (lines 70-79).
And in this interaction we can also see that in spite of being close to total break of communication,
the interaction was re-established several times with the collaboration of all participants. In
addition the data also shows that a shift of topic is the preferred move after the interaction has been
re-established.
Case 5. At the bus station. A very complicated answer to an easy question
Joe is at a Spanish bus station. The employee (Emp) at the ticket window is a male, about 40 years
old. There is a glass window between them with a tray in the lower part through which they
conduct the money and ticket exchange.
1.
TS/
M
ORI
ORI
SRI
ORI
Joe-
hola,
‘hello’
((woman talking on the background, unrelated to conversation)) (.15)
2. Joe
hola hay espacio uhmm (.) para dos personas
‘hello is there space uhmm for two people’
3. E –
para cuantos?
‘for how many?’
4. Joedos personas a las ocho
‘two people at eight’
5. Emp- a Valladolid?
‘to Valladolid’
6. Joesí
‘yes’
7. Emp- hoy?
‘today?’
8. Joehoy(..)y ehh están libros dieci:sieteydieciocho? creo que: es (.) alado salida, (..)y vuelto
9.
en domingo
‘today (..) and ehh are book (free)17 and 18? I think that it is next to exit, (..) and turn
(return) on Sunday’
10. Emp- qué número me dijo? (.) de asiento?
‘what number did you+polite tell me? the seat?’
11. Joeuhmm
12. Emp- sí . pero qué=?
‘yes, but what’
13. Joe=al lado (.) salida (.) emergencia (/emergeryencia/)
‘to the side (.) exit (.) emergency’
14. Emp- salida emergencia? e:l treintaicinco treintaiseis?
‘emergency exit? the 35 36?’
19
ORI
SRI
SR
AK
(1.5)
15. Emp-
o sea está alado de la puerta, el treintaicinco y el treintaiseis.
‘that is it is next to the door’
16. Joea sí? . porque soy . alto ah! (.) y un poco mas espacio ah!
‘ok? . because I am . tall
and a little more space ah!’
17. Emp- sí ahí está bien, () parte libre de adelante
‘yes, that is a good one, () more room in front’
18. Joevale. (..) y vuelto en domingo.
‘ok. (..) and return(mispronounced) on Sunday’
19. Emp- a la?
‘at?’
20. Joea las ocho.
‘at eight’
21. Emp- ocho de la tarde?
‘eight in the evening?’
22. Joesí (..) para dos personas sí?
‘yes (..) for two people, right?’
((Emp is issuing the ticket)) (1.5)
23. Emp- está en () de la linea con tarjeta no se puede pagar lo (siento)
‘it is in () of the line with credit card one cannot pay (sorry)’
24. Joe() tengo dinero
‘I have money’
((Joe takes out wallet)) (1.9)
25. Emp- veintidós con doce.
‘Twenty two with twelve.’
(1.0)((sound of coins on the window tray)) (1.3)
26. Emp- muy bien! ((Employ puts tickets on tray))
‘very good!’
27. Joegracias.
‘thanks.’
28. Emp- de nada.
‘you’re welcome.’
In this interaction the trouble source and point of misunderstanding is on line 8, when Joe, the NNS,
inquires about the seats in front of the emergency seat. The utterance in line 8 condenses too much
information for this type of exchange. So far in the interaction, each sequential pair has resolved
one detail of the ticket. Lines 2-4 deal with the number of tickets, lines 5-6 with destination. The
employee has been asking a single-answer question in each turn. Line 3 ‘how many?’, line 5 ‘to
Valladolid?’. In line 7 he also asks a question that requires ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as an answer. The NNS
answers the question (‘today’), and without any pause, goes into inquiring about the availability of
two concrete seats he think are by the emergency exit and also introduces additional data about the
return date. The question was not expected as shown by the employee’s turn in which he asks Joe
to repeat the numbers (‘what numbers did you say?’) (line 10), this is the first attempt to repair the
miscommunication (other initiated repair). In addition the trouble source turn includes the word
salida (‘exit’) but the NNS never produces an audible word emergencia (‘emergency’). The second
part of the employee’s utterance (line 10) shows he has not understood Joe’s idea of the seats being
by the emergency exit. He asks ‘what number did you tell me? of seat?’ ignoring the key point of
the information being that the numbers are not as important as the seats being by the emergency
exit. Key point which the NNS tries to get across again when repairing his previous utterance, (line
13). The NNS does not answer this question, seems to be thinking or trying to remember the
numbers as by the sound ‘uhmmm’ (line 11). At this point of breakage it is the NS that tries to
rebuild the interaction by asking again (line 12), but he does so in such an ambiguous way that is
not clear what he actually asking about. Faced with this ambiguity, the NNS tries to push across his
main point (the seats are by the emergency exit), which this time the employer recognizes,
20
formulating a confirmation requests (line 14) ‘emergency exit?’ and ‘thirty five thirty six?. Since
his questions are not answered by Joe, he goes into elaboration and reformulation of the utterance
(line 15). Joe then accepts his seats numbers and the misunderstanding is successfully repaired by
the NS who also adds more information about the seats that confirms they are at the emergency exit
(‘yes that’s good and they ( ) more room in the front’). The NS acknowledges the repair explicitly
‘vale’ (‘ok’), and re-states the communication by moving into another topic, about the return date
(that had been ignored in line 8-9) when the miscommunication developed.
In this interaction the miscommunication, in line 8, was due to several factors: grammatical,
pragmatical, and content related. First, the use of a complicated unexpected utterance also charged
with grammatical inaccuracies and pauses. The NNS used the word libros (‘books’) instead of
libres (‘free’), and vuelto instead of vuelta. He also used a direct translation from the English
utterance ‘are 17 and 18 available?’, but in Spanish the use of the noun asientos (‘seats’) next to the
numbers is required (since it had not been used any time before in the interaction). In addition, the
answer was not following the expected pattern set by the question, a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, and was
not following the pattern that the participants had established for the interaction, short questions
and answers, interview style. Furthermore, the utterance carried unexpected content, and was
pragmatically inappropriate. It is not customary to ask for specific seats when purchasing an
autobus ticket, as confirmed by most passengers not seating on their assigned seats, or not knowing
were the seat numbers are located (personal experience).
Case 6. Echinacea and pragmalinguistic failure
NNS returns to a shop to buy some Echinacea pills, but they have not arrived yet.
TS
ORI
ORI
1.
NNS -
2.
NS -
3.
NNS -
4.
NS -
5.
NNS -
6.
7.
NS -
8.
(0.4)
9.
(0.3)
10.
NNS -
hola,
‘hello’
hola
‘hello’
hola
‘hello’
a ver!
‘let’s’
tinene equines[ea?
‘do you have echinacea? (english pronunciation))’
[tardan en llegar porque: no tengo en el almacén de valladolid y
las he tenido que pedir a barcelona
‘it takes time to arrive because i don’t have in the supplier in valladolid and
I had to ask barcelona for them’
oh ok (disappointed)
NS -
entonces las tienen que mandar el paquete
NS
11.
NNS -
lo que pasa es que las tengo en extracto
‘so they have to send the package what it happens is that I have them in extract’
no (.) no [interesa
‘no (.) not interested’
[no te gusta
‘[you don’t like them’
no no (0.2)
entonces yo espero que el lunes lleguen desde barcelona
‘then i hope they arrive on monday from barcelona’
oh ok (disappointed)
porque tiene que venir el paquete desde allí y tarda más
‘because the package has to arrive from there and it takes longer’
12.
13.
14.
NNS NS -
15.
16.
NNS NS -
21
SR
17.
18.
NNS NS -
(1.4)
19.
ok, (.)
por eso
‘that’s why’
NNS -
20.
NS -
vale gracias
‘ok thanks’
gracias a ti, hasta luego
‘thank you, see you later’
Although apparently there is no miscommunication in this interaction, a closer look at the pauses
and the NNS’s answers show that there are actually problems on the pragmatics of the social
interaction. If we compare this interaction with a similar interaction involving the same seller and
another NS a few days earlier, we can see where the problem in this interaction raises.
1.
NS-
2.
Shp-
3.
NS-
4.
Shp-
5.
NS-
6.
Shp-
7.
NS-
8.
Shp-
9.
NS-
hola
‘hello’
hola. buenas ta:rdes
‘hello, good evening’
las velas de limón llegaron ya?
‘the lemon candles, have they arrive?’
no:↓, no tenían en el almacén de aquí ↓
‘no: ↓, they didn’t have in the suppliers here↓’
bueno↓, la próxima semana entonces?
‘ok↓ next week then?’
sí, espero que ya estén.
‘yes, I hope they are (here)’
vale↓, me paso entonces el lunes
‘ok↓, I’ll pass by on Monday then’
va:le::, hasta lue::go
‘ok, see you later’
adiós
‘bye’
In this dialogue we can see that the NS in line 5 has understood line 4 as enough explanation for her
question in line 3. She confirms the understanding ‘bueno’ and the question moves into a different
topic, ( when are the candles going to arrive). The shop assistant recognizes the pre-closings ‘vale’
and the intonation contour of the sentence (line 7) and responds appropriately by ending the
conversation.
In contrast, the NNS did fail to recognize the pre-closings from the shop assistant (lines 6-7) as
marked by the intonation and the long pause at the end of her turn. Instead of closing the
conversation here, the NNS responds with minimal feedback and using an intonation that invited
his interlocutor to continue. At the point, the assistant is obliged to continue with another
explanation, paraphrasing the excuse that she has given before. It is not until turn 17 that the NNS
closes the conversation. This conversation shows that service encounters are different to a regular
conversation. In a regular conversation, the NS would have probably ended his/her turn and wait
for a closing response, and in the absence of this s/he would have closed the conversation
him/herself, letting the NNS confused about the break of communication. However, in a service
interaction the shop attendance has as much to loose as the client, and this is motivation enough to
keep the communication flow until the client is ready to close it. This is an example of
pragmalinguistic failure. This situation usually results in inappropriate behaviour and may lead to
the NS thinking that the NNS is impolite or it may even be attributed to an intentionality that does
22
not necessarily have. From the NNS perspective it is also more difficult to repair because the
problem is not salient to them.
Case 7. At the Bank. Different agendas.
NNS enters this bank for the second time. The first time he wanted to change money but the
quantity was too large for this branch and they sent him to the main branch. He comes back to ask
for directions to the main branch, but the cashier offers to change the money and take it herself to
the main branch later. He still needs direction to the other branch because he wants to open an
account there, what he doesn’t share with the bank teller.
1.
TS
2.
M1
3.
ORI1
4.
SRI/M2
5.
ORI2
6.
SRI2
7.
ORI2
8.
SR2
9.
AK/SRI
10.
SR1
11.
12.
13.
14.
SIR1
15.
16.
SR
17.
AK1
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
NNS
hola
‘hello’
NS los has podido cambiar?
‘Have you been able to change them?’
NNS - lo siento olvidé direcciones
‘I am sorry I forgot directions’
NS perdona?
‘Excuse me?’
NNS - olvidé::, (.)
‘I forgot’
NS –
olvida:ste?
‘you forgot?’
NNS – sí
‘yes’
NS el qué?
‘what?’
NNS - y:: dónde está el otra ofcina‘and where is the other office ((error in agreement))’
NS ah (.) les tienes aquí? (.) les tienes aquí los dólares? ((regional intonat.))
‘ah! (.) do you have them here? (.) do you have them here, the dollars?’
NNS – sí
‘yes’
NS les has cambiado ya?
‘have you changed them already?’
NNS - es posible? o necesito [ ir a
‘is it possible? Or do I need to go to’
NS [sí traelos traelos (.) [te los cambio, sí
‘yes bring them (.) I change them, yes’
NNS [ok (.) ok
NNS - pero donde es la otra oficina?
‘but where is the other branch?’
NS es allí (.) esta calle todo recto (.)
‘it’s over there (.) this street down’
NNS - ↑ok
NS pero bueno por si acaso te lo cambio yo aquí y ya está [porque si no_
‘but well, just in case I’ll change them for you here and that’s it [because if
not’
NNS [está bien?
‘ [is that all right?’
NS ya voy yo (.) luego puedo ir yo sabes
‘I’ll go myself (.) later, I can go, you know’
NNS - oh no!, es posible para mi [es es (English structure)
‘oh, no! It is possible for me it’s it’s’
NS [no (.) para hacértelo mas cómodo (.) déjalo!
[‘no, to make it easier for you, don’t worry!’
NNS - ok ((laughing)
23
This interaction starts by both participants initiating different topics that they would try to carry on
without the support of the other participant. This leads inevitably to several miscommunications.
The NS, who sent the NNS to another bank to change the money wants to know about this topic:
line 2, los has podido cambiar? (‘did you manage to change them’). We can see from the
interaction that the participants know each other and they have talked before about a specific topic
as marked by the use of the pronoun los (‘them’) in her opening utterance without its reference
noun. On the other hand the NNS comes in the bank with a different purpose, to ask for directions.
He doesn’t acknowledge the NS’s question at all and states his purpose for having come back to the
bank, (line 3) lo siento olvidé direcciones (‘I am sorry I forgot directions’). This turn, which should
have been an answer to the question before, (immediate pair), breaks up the flow of the interaction
and forces the NS to try to repair by asking directly about the misunderstanding ‘excuse me?’ (line
4).
The NNS tries to repair this misunderstanding (self initiated repair) by restating the same phrase,
but his delay in producing the sentence forces the help of the NS, which tries to elicit the words
from him (line 6). Instead the NNS takes this as confirmation check and answers ‘yes’ instead of
finishing his utterance (line 7), this takes the NS to ask more explicitly, by asking exactly about the
direct object of the sentence, the element that is still ambiguous, el qué? (‘what?’). In English
‘what’ could be asking either about the object or the subject, but in Spanish the use of the article in
front of the interrogative particle, makes clear the question is about the direct object of the sentence
and not the subject. Finally, the NNS successfully repairs the interaction by rephrasing and
clarifying his first statement (line 9). The NS then acknowledges and this misunderstanding is
solved. The conversation is rebuilt by the NS, who still has not been able to push her topic into the
interaction. This time she asks in a direct way which causes no problem to the interaction and gets
her the answer she has searching for since line 2. But still the NNS has not found out where the
other bank branch is. He goes back to this topic (line 16) which the NS successfully resolves in line
17 by giving directions. The directions are very vague though (‘over there’ ‘this street all the way
to the end’), and if the NNS had followed them he would have never arrived at the bank.
Nevertheless, for the NS this topic is not important since she is already helping him at what he is
supposed to be doing at the other bank.
Conclusion
Looking again at the research questions, we can now provide some answers, always limited of
course, to the reality of the data analyzed. For an overview see Figure 2 on Appendix1.
Q1: How does misunderstanding occur? (types of misunderstanding). The sources of
miscommunication were mainly grammatical (most often lexical), based on content and based on
the pragmatics of social interaction.
Q2: Who attempts to repair the miscommunication and how? (types of repair initiation). The repair
sequences were initiated both by NS and NNS. The repair was more successful when the repair
was done close to the point of misunderstanding. Both self-initiated and other-initiated repairs
appeared in the data, and it was usually a combination of both that lead to the successful repair of
the interaction, what seems to prove the importance of collaborating to repair the interaction.
Q3: Who repairs the misunderstanding and how is it done? (repair process). The resources that the
participants used to repair the interaction varied from visual reference, such as pointing at an
element, to full negatives followed by repetitions or reformulations. The data also showed that
clarification requests and confirmation checks were often used to initiate the repair sequence. The
24
repairs were done both by Ns and NNS, although in most of the cases it was the NS who achieved
the restoration of the interaction. The strategies that successfully restored the communication vary
greatly, form simply supply the lexical item that was the source of trouble to the use of corrective
‘no’ + supplying the correct information, to the share of pragmatic knowledge that was previously
ignored by the NNS. An interesting point is that only 3 strategies of those presented by Tzanne
(2000) appeared in the data: speaker corrects in the form ‘not X, Y’ or No, Y’; speakers corrects in
form ‘Y’, and speaker invites hearer non-verbally to consider interpretation’. In addition,
clarification requests and confirmation checks, not included in her framework, appeared often in the
data.
Q4: What happens after the misunderstanding is repaired? (re-building the interaction). The data
illustrates that there is usually some type of acknowledgment that the interaction has been reestablished (in all cases except one) as the first step towards the re-construction of the interaction.
Both NS and NNS re-established the flow of communication and continued the interaction by using
several strategies, although two of them were more frequent: continue the normal pattern of a
service interaction, or revert back to information that had been ignored when the communication
broke down. These strategies may be a reflection of service encounters interaction, in which both
participants have a set goal to reach and collaboration is essential to obtain it. Another interesting
point that comes out in this service encounters data is that when NNS are engaged in coconstructing the interaction they actually focus on the content and not simply on the form to
maintain a ‘polite’ conversation without real understanding (cases 1, 2 and 7 especially). This was a
point of concern presented by Færch and Kasper (1986), which stated that in studies of negotiation,
the participants may be maintaining the conversation to ensure ‘formal’ rather than ‘substantive’
understanding.
In general, all interactions show that in order to achieve understanding both participants need to
cooperate in the construction of the interaction; and that both misunderstandings and repairs are
part of the process of constructing communication. In order to help NNS to be socially competent
interactors of a language we need to incorporate the process of co-construction in their language
training, paying attention not only to the linguistic component but to the socio-pragmatics involved
in the communication process.
As for further research, it would be interesting to develop materials and activities that bring coconstruction of interaction to the classroom and find their impact on the students’ language and
sociopragmatics acquisition. In addition, more research involving NNS needs to be done in
different types of encounters, to see what the variations and consistencies of their interactions are.
There is a wide-open field of study waiting.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor Gabriele Kasper for her insightful comments on the manuscript.
References
Atkinson, M. and J. Heritage 1984. Eds. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Banks, S., Ge, G, and Baker, J. 1991. Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication, in: N. Coupland, H. Giles and
J. Wiemann, eds. “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 103-120
Boden, D. and D. Zimmerman 1991. eds. Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation
analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bremer, K. 1996. Causes of understanding problems, in: K. Bremer, C. Roberts, M. Vasseur, M. Simonot, and P.
Broeder. Achieving Understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London, UK: Longman. 37-64.
25
Bremer, K. and M. Simonot 1996. Preventing problems of understanding, in: K. Bremer, C. Roberts, M. Vasseur, M.
Simonot, and P. Broeder: Achieving Understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London, UK: Longman.
159-180.
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M., Simonot, M., and Broeder, P. 1996. Achieving Understanding: Discourse in
intercultural encounters. London, UK: Longman.
Coupland, N., H. Giles and J. Wiemann 1991. “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Drummond, K. and R. Hopper 1991. Misunderstanding and Its Remedies: Telephone Miscommunication, in: N.
Coupland, H. Giles and J. Wiemann, eds. “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Færch, K. and G. Kasper 1986. The role of comprehension in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 7: 257-74.
Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversational analysis.
Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 237-259.
Gass, S. and E. Varonis 1991. Miscommunication in Nonnative Speaker Discourse, in: N. Coupland, H. Giles and J.
Wiemann, eds. “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in public. Microstudies of the public order. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin
Gudykunst, W. B. and S. Ting-Toomey 1990. Ethnic identity, language and communication breakdowns, in: H. Giles
and P. Robinson, eds. Handbook of language and social psychology. London: John Wiley. 309-328
Gumperz, J. 1978. The conversational analysis of interethnic communication, in: E. L. Ross, ed. Interethnic
communication: Proceedings of the Southern Anthropological Society. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Gumperz, J. and D. Tannen 1979. Individual and social differences in language use, in: C. Fillmore, D. Kempler and
W.S-Y. Wang, eds. Individual differences in language ability and language behaviour. New York: Macmillan. 305-325
Hall, J. 1993. The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The socio cultural dimension of
interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14,2: 145-166.
Hatch, E. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition, in: E. Hatch, ed. Second Language Acquisition: A
Book of Readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 402-435.
Hansell, M. and C.S. Ajirotutu 1982. Negotiating interpretations in interethnic settings, in: J. Gumperz, ed. Language
and Social Identity, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 85-94.
Hewstone, M., and H. Giles 1986. Social groups and social stereotypes in intergroup communication: A review and
model of intergroup communication breakdown, in: W. B. Gudykunst, ed, Intergroup Communication, London:
Edward Arnold. 10-26
Hinnenkamp, V. 1987. Foreign talk, code switching, and the concept of trouble, in: K. Knapp, W. Enninger, and A.
Knapp-Potthoff, eds. Analyzing intercultural communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 137-180
Hinnenkamp, V. 1991. Talking a person into interethnic discourse: An analytical case study, in: J. Blommaert and J.
Verschueren, eds. The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Hinnenkamp, V. 2003. Misunderstandings: Interactional structure and strategic resources, in: J. House, G. Kasper, and
S. Ross, eds., Misunderstandings in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. London, UK: Longman.
57-81
House, J., G. Kasper and S. Ross eds. 2003. Misunderstandings in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic
Talk. London, UK: Longman.
Hosoda, Y. 2000. Other-Repair in Japanese Conversations between Nonnative and Native Speakers. Issues in Applied
Linguistics 11(1): 39-63.
Koole, T. and D. ten Thije, J. 2001. The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33:571-587.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Milroy, L. 1984. Comprehension and context: Successful communication and communicative breakdown. In P.
Trudgill, ed. , Applied Sociolinguistics. London: Academic Press. 7-21
Ochs, E. 1991. Misunderstanding children, in: N. Coupland, H. Giles and J. Wiemann, eds. “Miscommunication” and
Problematic Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and
outcomes. Language Learning, 44: 493-527.
Roberts, C. 1996. A social perspective on understanding: some issues of theory and method. In K. Bremer, C. Roberts,
M. Vasseur, M. Simonot, and P. Broeder . Achieving Understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London,
UK: Longman. pp 9-36.
Schegloff, E. 1977. Third turn repair. In G. R Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, and J. Baugh eds. Towards a social science
of language. Papers in honor of William Labov, 2: 31-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Schegloff, E. 2000. When ‘Others’ Initiate Repair. Applied Linguistics, 21: 205-242.
26
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson and H. Sacks 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in
conversation. Language, 53: 361-382.
Schwartz, J. 1980. The negotiation for meaning: Repair in conversations between second language learners of English.
In D. Larsen-Freeman, ed. Discourse analysis in second language research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 138-153
Tannen, D. 1975. Communication mix and mixup or how linguistics can ruin a marriage. San Jose State Occasional
Papers in Linguistics. 205-211
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics,4: 91-109.
Trosborg, A. 1987. Apology strategies in native/nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 147-167.
Tzanne, A. 2000. Talking at Cross-Purposes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Varonis, M. and S. Gass 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied
Linguistics, 6: 71-90.
Vasseur, M., P. Broeder and C. Roberts 1996. Managing understanding from a minority perspective. In K. Bremer, C.
Roberts, M. Vasseur, M. Simonot, and P. Broeder, eds. Achieving Understanding: Discourse in intercultural
encounters. London, UK: Longman. 65-108.
Vygotsky, L. 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wagner, J. 1996. Foreign language acquisition through interaction – A critical review of research on conversation
adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 215-235.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, S. 1989. Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language in Society 18: 59-76.
Wong, J. 2000. Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation. Applied
Linguistics 21(2): 244-267.
27